Trump Cabinet Picks Should Fight Their Own Bureaucracies

Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt in 2014 (Reuters photo: Nick Oxford) We need more appointees who sued the agencies they’re chosen to run.

Donald Trump has selected Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt, it turns out, has sued the EPA, seeking to block lawless, expansive, job-killing environmental regulations. Many on the left think this is a terrible thing.

I think it’s fabulous.

There’s this ridiculous slander going around — that at least three of Trump’s appointees “have key philosophical differences with the missions of the agencies they have been tapped to run.” In other words, they don’t want to lead their agencies so much as “dismantle” them. How so? Ben Carson, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has a “deep aversion to social-safety-net programs and fair-housing initiatives that have been central to that agency’s activities.” Betsy DeVos, Trump’s education-secretary nominee, has — gasp — a “passion for private school vouchers.” And Pruitt? Well, as noted above, he sued his own agency.

Advertisement

But these critics are wrongly equating the agency’s very mission with the progressive policies they favor. What if the costs of EPA regulations far outweigh any reasonable environmental benefit? Or what if its regulations exceed the scope of the agency’s congressionally delegated powers? What if “social safety net” programs do more to trap people in poverty than lift the poor into the middle class? And what if public schools are producing legions of students who aren’t prepared for college, much less to compete in a world economy? Is it the “mission” of the agency to keep pursuing failed, harmful policies?

Just for fun, I looked up the actual missions of each of the three agencies. They’re quite instructive.

The Department of Education’s mission is to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development exists to “create strong, sustainable, and inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.”

The EPA’s “basic mission” is to “protect human health and the environment.” How so? By working to ensure “compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern that these missions are focused on outcomes, not on methods. If a progressive regulatory regime isn’t actually promoting student achievement, then it’s entirely consistent with the mission of the organization to try a different method. The same analysis applies to HUD. If progressive ideas are failing, or if a conservative believes that his or her methods would improve outcomes, then it’s not just “consistent” with the mission of the organization to try a different approach, it’s imperative.

As for the EPA, note the key qualification. The agency does not have blanket power to do anything it wants in the name of environmental protection. Instead, it’s a creature of Congress, tasked with enforcing laws passed by Congress. When it acts lawlessly it, by definition, betrays that mission.

The Left built a regulatory house of cards, and it knows it.

All of this is blindingly obvious — so obvious that contrary arguments are frankly embarrassing. But something else is going on. The Left is realizing its vulnerability. The Obama administration didn’t have the popular support to pass its agenda through Congress, so it went around Congress on a massive scale, including through executive actions and regulatory rulemakings that had a dramatic impact on American industries, neighborhoods, and schools. All of that rulemaking and each of those executive actions are now subject to repeal — without any action from Congress and over the objection of the progressive career bureaucrats who staff the agencies.

This was not supposed to happen. The Left was secure behind its “blue wall” and comfortable with a “coalition of the ascendant” that was supposed to guarantee the White House in 2016 and for every cycle to come — unless and until the GOP got on the “right side of history.” Thus, regulatory rulemaking and executive actions were all upside. So long as they survived court challenges, then progressives could implement their agenda without the necessity of compromise.

#related#Those days are now over. The Left built a regulatory house of cards, and it knows it. So now it’s trying to change the rules of the game, trying to redefine its progressive policy ideas as the very “mission” of the organizations these conservatives are now set to lead. The only way this specious argument works is if progressives raise such a hue and cry that the Trump administration decides that change isn’t worth the trouble. In other words, if Trump or his Cabinet caves.

But I don’t think Scott Pruitt will cave. How do I know? He sued the agency he’ll soon lead. We need more men and women like him.

Most Popular

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ...
Read More

Are children innocents or are they leaders?
Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development?
The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ...
Read More

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom.
We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ...
Read More

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ...
Read More

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ...
Read More

Howard Finkelstein, the Broward County public defender whose office is representing Nikolas Cruz, the suspect in the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., puts it bluntly:
This kid exhibited every single known red flag, from killing animals to having a cache of weapons to disruptive behavior to saying he wanted to be ...
Read More

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.”
American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ...
Read More

To understand the American gun-control debate, you have to understand the fundamentally different starting positions of the two sides. Among conservatives, there is the broad belief that the right to own a weapon for self-defense is every bit as inherent and unalienable as the right to speak freely or practice ...
Read More

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing.
This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ...
Read More